So, who has the burden of proof?

"Prove that god exists."

"Prove that god doesn't exist."

"Prove that god exists."

"Prove that god doesn't exist."

And so on and so forth. This is usually how arguments revolving around the idea of burden of proof go. Let's make it perfectly clear that when it comes to theism versus atheism, the theist is the one who has the burden of proof. Why? I'll tell you.

One simple way to put it is that the burden of proof lies with the person, or group, that is making the claim. Atheism makes no claim about the existence or nonexistence of god, but theism does. Therefore, for this reason, the theist has the burden of proof. It's not because we don't want to make an argument (the atheists), it's that it isn't philosophically on us to prove anything. You don't have to prove a lack of belief.

So, there you have it. The burden of proof is on the theist. Now, here's a funny little anecdote from Ricky Gervais explaining why it is fallacious to have to prove atheism.

"It annoys me that the burden of proof is on us. It should be: 'You came up with the idea. Why do you believe it?' I could tell you I've got superpowers. But I can't go up to you and say 'Prove I can't fly.' They'd go: 'What do you mean prove you can't fly. Prove you can!'"

That pretty much sums it up. Oh, throw him a bone with regards to the first sentence. Everyone makes a mistake. :)